I'm an associate editor at Forbes, part of the team responsible for our signature issues: The Forbes 400, Global Billionaires and America's Richest Families. As a writer, I cover these wealthy business builders as well as other entrepreneurs. Before Forbes, I also reported on entrepreneurs for Inc. magazine and attended Syracuse University's S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications.

The reelection of President Obama will bring new, restrictive gun laws that infringe on the Second Amendment and impede the lifestyle of millions of Americans.

That mindset prompted many Americans to support Republican challenger Mitt Romney. It’s also why gun companies stand to do better business under President Obama than they would have under President Romney.

Consider that firearm fever soared to record highs during Obama’s first term, fueled by fear that Obama would introduce anti-gun legislation. Black Friday 2011 set a new record for gun sales, surpassing only Black Friday 2008. Today, Americans own roughly 300 million firearms, making the U.S. the world’s most heavily armed nation.

Production and profit at U.S. gun companies have increased to keep up. Sturm, Ruger, the largest public U.S. gun company, actually stopped taking new orders this year when it could no longer meet demand. Ruger went from earning $9 million on $168 million in sales in 2008 to $40 million on $329 million in sales last year; Smith & Wesson made $9 million on $296 million in 2008, up to $16 million on $412 million in 2011. Meanwhile, shares of Ruger increased more than 500% since 2008, while Smith & Wesson stock rose 450%.

Now, it stands to reason that President Obama’s victory last night will send more shoppers out to Cabela’s, Dick’s Sporting Goods and Wal-Mart for shotguns and rifles. The bubble in the gun market threatened to burst if Romney took office. It’s virtually assured to exist a bit longer with Obama retaining residence in the White House. “I think that definitely plays out in the near term,” says Northland Capital Markets‘ Reed Anderson.

Investors today seem to agree. In a very dismal day for stocks, when the broader market is down 2%, Ruger gained 7.5%, and Smith & Wesson went up 9.3%. Neither of these explosive stocks sell cheaply. Ruger fetches 22.7 times last year’s earnings, Smith & Wesson trades at 25.2 times.

Looking ahead, it’s unclear whether Obama can or would lead any charge against guns. Speaking at the second presidential debate, Obama did seem to advocate for a reintroduction of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban. This piece of legislation, passed during the Clinton Administration, expired in 2004. It made certain types of semi-automatics illegal—firearms designed to recall military-style weapons with detachable magazines. Many gunmakers today make rifles that bare strong resemblances to those issued soldiers.

The gun industry has christened these types of rifles as modern sporting rifles, a way to distance these products from any negative connotations. Certainly popular today, especially among young gun buyers more familiar perhaps with Call of Duty than the deer blind, an all-out ban on modern sporting rifles could dent the industry. Cripple it? No, in fact, modern sporting rifles are seldom the only gun in a house. More prosaic firearms—hunting rifles, handguns, shotguns—are the typical first purchase, according to data from the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

This assumes, though, that Obama could pass anti-gun legislation. The status quo in Washington, D.C., was maintained in the election. Obama faces a divided Congress. Prospects for accomplishing anything amibitious seem greatly limited.

Not to mention, since the early 1990s, a stark culture shift occurred toward supporting guns; even if Obama wanted to limit gun sales, there may not be the same support that the Clinton Administration tapped to create the Federal Assault Weapon Ban. Today, more women than ever have a gun, many favoring the small pistols and revolvers produced to take advantage of concealed carry laws, and nearly half of Americans own a weapon. ”That alone to me reaffirms that this is an industry with a political and regulatory component that drives demand fluctuation, but you’ve also got a broadening base of customers,” says Northland’s Anderson. “The leaders in this industry are going to be OK no matter what.”

When I profiled Ruger in FORBES‘ Best Small Companies issue, I pressed CEO Mike Fifer to talk about D.C.’s reach on his business. I wanted to gauge how Fifer worry about an upcoming ban. He did not seem apprehensive. He dismissed most of the chatter around politics and mass shootings as distracting noise (adding that nothing shook his belief in the industry more than the violence in places like Aurora, Col. and Owl Creek, Wisc.).

Those horrors aside, it’s hard to see America’s firearm fever breaking. Gun companies will likely keep their spark under the next four Obama years.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Turn to 1:27 on this YouTube clip, and you’ll see President Obama sparring about guns in a debate moderated by Tim Russert in 2008. So, yes, it’s been an established position. But a variety of issues I imagine pushed this to the backburner for the Obama Administration. There was the economic crisis, and the White House’s desire to characterize their first term with health care reform, as well as that cultural shift back toward gun ownership. It would not be as popular for Obama to reintroduce a version of the Assault Weapon Ban as it was for President Clinton.

“Is there any hunter who needs a P90 to hunt? Or a Tec-9 with an extended mag to kill an intruder?”

And is there any citizen who actually NEEDS the freedom of speech, or the right not to be searched without probable cause? The wording of the 2nd Amendment guarantees much stronger protection then either the 4th or 1st Amendments, so if we were able to weaken the 2nd, the others could EASILY be abolished/infringed/impugned…and then where would we be? Probably wishing we had a p90 or a Tec-9 with a big mag use to demand our rights back. If you get you head out of your (bleep) it makes it easier to see past your nose.

Thank you for your comment, but I do urge you to remain civil. We live in a complicated society: The 2nd Amendment must be supported, yet America is a violent and heavily armed nation (by Western standards). I do, of course, realize that violent crime has fallen since the 1990s, but events like the Colorado movie theater and Owl Creek, Wisc. shootings will raise eyebrows.

Talk about runaway, idiot bit of paranoia. I’ve never heard Obama say anything about guns except on a couple of occasions and it wasn’t much then. This idea is illustrative of the unreasonable fear Obama generates in conservatives. Since Obama was elected the first time, I’ve heard and seen relatives and close friends buying guns like they’re stockpiling for an imminent war.

It doesn’t take much to figure out I have little use for firearms. I have two weapons I’ve purchased over the years, a top of the line pellet rifle and a 20 gauge shotgun, both purchased to control animals and whatever other critters. When I asked folks I knew about the stampede to buy guns, I found it also extended to ammunition. There were rumors going around that Democrats were not going to mess with guns, but were going to restrict ammunition or heavily tax it.

I guess you can make some good money if you’ve got the right stuff to sell when the paranoia strikes. I find it hillilarious that in this day and time, with all the access to information we have that people would rush out and spend a bunch of money on a rumor without ever checking on it.

I fell into the trap of this ho-humm propaganda of gun sales in Oct 2008, I bought an over priced rifle thinking that the dems might be stricter with gun laws in if they got into office. Instead, it has gotten easier and CCW permit has broadened since the dems got into office. Well, here it is again, another propaganda..

In the solidly conservative communities where the bulk of these deadly weapons are consumed many of these weapons are not used for hunting or even protection but by mass murders preying on their neighbors?

Kids killing fellow students in the classrooms and halls of schools? Deranged sons and brothers shooting up the malls or theaters? All good for business as well eh? Following every mass shooting there is an uptick in gun sales also that the author fails to mention.

The irony is, President Barrack Obama being a Democrat and all, the guns sales his election spurs has Republicans/Conservatives killing off each other. Four years from now the next Democratic candidate would be wise to announce an intention to restrict gun sales thereby letting the opposition kill off some of the conservative voters. “Self voter suppression” in a manner of speaking.

Thank for your comment, but I respectfully disagree that most firearms in “conservative communities” are used in mass shootings. Certainly, there notable exceptions, several recent ones at that. The vast majority of firearms sold legally in this country are destined for the deer blind.

This is a perfect example of the paranoid loony faction of conservatives. Romney signed assault weapons bans when he was governor of Mass, Obama allows guns in National Parks and on Amtrak, something that would make Reagan loose sleep, yet Obama is the anti-gun boogie man and Romney was some conservative hero. People need to start trusting reality a bit more.